Reply to: HMRCs new PS tool

[RonBW]

Ask your agency.

I don't need to - you just need to know what fields are available in the HMRC mandated format for reporting payments to intermediaries.

Given that there is no field for anyone to tell HMRC what the job is, how could HMRC tell that person A who got an outside determination is doing the same role as person Q, and therefore is worth an investigation?

[SueEllen]

Is job role included in the data provided from the agency?

Ask your agency.

Oh and unless it's changed - and the government changes slowly - they have lots of problems retaining data on .gov.uk websites. They also have to say legally whether it is or isn't retained as Liberty etc will go after them otherwise.

[LondonManc]

Is job role included in the data provided from the agency?

As I've said before, UK plc are skint. They'll get it.

[RonBW]

They'll investigate anyone who is declaring outside where the same job role is declared inside elsewhere in the Public Sector. Don't worry about that.

Is job role included in the data provided from the agency?

[RonBW]

What result did you get - I saw that for one that was indetermined...

Outside

[LondonManc]

Called it

Having just done the test for my engagement, there is a great big "HMRC will not keep a record of this transaction for security reasons." at the end of it:

About this result
HMRC won’t keep a record of this transaction for security reasons.

HMRC will stand by the result given unless a compliance check finds the information provided isn’t accurate.

They'll investigate anyone who is declaring outside where the same job role is declared inside elsewhere in the Public Sector. Don't worry about that.

[eek]

Called it

Having just done the test for my engagement, there is a great big "HMRC will not keep a record of this transaction for security reasons." at the end of it:

About this result
HMRC won’t keep a record of this transaction for security reasons.

HMRC will stand by the result given unless a compliance check finds the information provided isn’t accurate.

What result did you get - I saw that for one that was indetermined...

[RonBW]

I refer you to the post I made some moments ago - according to people close to the project, until not so long ago the prospect of needing to retain an audit trail of what questions were asked and answered had not occurred to HMRC. According to the same people, there would be a number and an outcome available, and a release note of what version was in operation at the time of completing the tool, but no record of what answers had been given. And there would be no way for the client to get a copy of the questions asked and answered in the event of future need.

That may have changed in the past month, but I don't have faith in HMRC to have suddenly produced it out of thin air.

Called it

Having just done the test for my engagement, there is a great big "HMRC will not keep a record of this transaction for security reasons." at the end of it:

About this result
HMRC won’t keep a record of this transaction for security reasons.

HMRC will stand by the result given unless a compliance check finds the information provided isn’t accurate.

[RonBW]

They've just closed the beta to further feedback, indicating that the public launch will happen "soon".

LinkedIn says 4pm.....

[jamesbrown]

They've just closed the beta to further feedback, indicating that the public launch will happen "soon".

[jamesbrown]

This bit interests me. Is there any scope in the tool, as used to be accepted, that those of us that work on list-x sites don't have the determination of where we work and using our own equipment. This used to be acceptable on the grounds of national security and was therefore ignored so long as other working practices made you none permie like.
Anyone tried a combination of inputs for someone working on a list-x site in the private sector?

No, it isn't that nuanced, and you raise a fair point about how neutral factors (those that cannot discriminate between employment and self-employment) are weighted. I suspect this would receive a negative weighting, and it shouldn't. However, bear in mind the posts immediately above this one; it looks as though the tool doesn't have sensible decision logic yet.

[Yorkie62]

As far as I can tell, it needs to be fairly weak though, as in the PSB telling you what to do, when and where to do it,.......
Moderate combinations of D&C across the above elements may lead to an indeterminate or caught scenario in the absence of a legitimate RoS (which immediately terminates the process as outside).

This bit interests me. Is there any scope in the tool, as used to be accepted, that those of us that work on list-x sites don't have the determination of where we work and using our own equipment. This used to be acceptable on the grounds of national security and was therefore ignored so long as other working practices made you none permie like.
Anyone tried a combination of inputs for someone working on a list-x site in the private sector?

[jamesbrown]

Called it

I caveated my posts for this reason; ultimately, the matrix is easily re-calibrated and, probably, the last thing they finalize. To be fair, they made it clear that the results couldn't be relied upon, but I assumed they were referring to tweaking. That said, from reading the link, I get the impression that not everyone is testing the same thing (e.g. the point about substitution doesn't ring true from my testing, although I agree on the point about fettering). Sounds as though we're testing from the bloody mainline. Only HMG could make beta testing look like rocket science

[RonBW]

.

Called it

My gut feeling is that the current version of the decision matrix isn't the final one, even if the front end has changed enough so that it is reasonable (eg difference between substitution and sub-contracting finally ironed out).

That way when HMRC suddenly switch to the final version of the matrix, which then catches everyone, they can simply say "we trialled it with loads of people and they were all happy with the outcome, so they said that it was OK to use this" and more people end up caught.

[jamesbrown]